T. Taylor
   Internet Draft                                       Nortel Networks
   Document: draft-taylor-mmusic-sdp-tdm-01.txt
   Expires: October 2002                                     April 2002


     Conventions for the use of the Session Description Protocol (SDP)
                      for Digital Circuit Connections


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
   with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


Abstract

   This document describes conventions for using the Session
   Description Protocol (SDP) for controlling digital circuits.  These
   conventions describe
    - circuit addressing conventions for use on the SDP "c=" line
    - content of the "m=" line(s) for digital circuits
    - attributes to convey the parameters contained within the Bearer
      Capability, Low Layer Compatibility, and High Layer Compatibility
      Information Elements of ITU-T Recommendation Q.931.

   These conventions have been defined for use in media gateway
   control, particularly in support of NAS operation, but may also be
   used by IP-based call signalling schemes (SIP, BICC) to control
   media exchange over digital circuits.



   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               1
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

1. Introduction

   The scope of SDP control is being extended to a variety of bearer
   types, particularly to serve the needs of media gateway control
   protocols such as Megaco/H.248 [2] and MGCP [3], but also those of
   the bearer-related portions of call signalling over the internet as
   represented by SIP [4] and BICC [5].  Control of ATM bearers was
   documented in [6].  This document uses [6] as a model for a rather
   simpler case, the control of 64 kbit/s digital circuits.  These
   circuits may carry voice, video or multiplexed multimedia, voiceband
   data (fax relay, modem relay), or baseband data (PPP, frame relay
   etc.).

   The conventions in this document may be applied in three possible
   situations:

   (1)  For media gateway control at the boundary between an ISDN
        access network and another bearer network.  In this case, SDP
        must capture bearer characteristics conveyed in the Q.931 call
        signalling protocol [7].

   (2)  For media gateway control at the boundary between an ISDN core
        network and another bearer network.  In this case, SDP must
        capture bearer characteristics conveyed in the SS7 ISUP call
        signalling protocol [8].  Since a mapping has been defined
        between ISUP and Q.931 [9], the SDP conventions required will
        be in large part the same as in the first case.

   (3)  For control of TDM circuits across a network using SIP or BICC
        [5].  This is a potential future application, included here for
        logical completeness, since neither SIP nor BICC is currently
        being designed with TDM circuit networks in mind.

1.1 Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
   this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [10].

   "TDM" stands for "Time Division Multiplex" digital transmission.

   In this document, the term "TDM circuit" is used to mean a 64 kbit/s
   TDM channel.

1.2 Scope

   This document provides the means to describe media flows in TDM
   circuits.  Although it will be of use in the general categories of
   applications described in the introduction, it is specifically aimed
   at satisfying the requirements of the Megaco/H.248 media gateway
   control protocol including the voice, voice-band data (and NAS
   operation in particular), and multimedia conferencing (H.320 and
   H.324i) applications.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               2
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

   This document provides conventions for:
    - use of the SDP "b=" line to convey the TDM circuit information
      transfer rate
    - addressing of TDM circuits on the SDP "c=" line
    - the transport types TDM, PKT/TDM, and FRM/TDM
    - a description of the content carried by the TDM circuit on the
      SDP "m=" line
    - attributes to convey the content of the Q.931 Low Layer and High
      Layer Compatibility Information Elements.

   The present issue of this document excludes the following:

    1. Mapping of Layer 2 and Layer 3 protocol parameters (e.g. for
      X.25, frame relay) into SDP attributes.  It is assumed that such
      mappings will be defined in separate protocol-specific documents
      if they are required.

    2. Bearer capability negotiation.  Q.931 and ISUP support the
      inclusion of multiple Bearer Capability Information Elements for
      negotiation.  This document supports transfer of only one set of
      bearer capability information per session description.

    3. Support of multi-rate (N x 64 kbit/s) service.

   This document conforms to the syntactic conventions of SDP as
   defined in [1].

1.3 Why Are TDM-Circuit-Specific Conventions Needed?

   SDP was originally designed for the description of media sessions
   carried over IP packets, typically using RTP [11] encapsulation and
   UDP transport.  In contrast, description of media transport over TDM
   circuits must begin at a much lower level, with the basic
   organization of the bits across the 64 kbit/s channel.  Moreover,
   the higher-layer organization of the content is typically negotiated
   "in-band", through protocols such as V.8bis or V.140.  This forces a
   re-interpretation of the contents of the SDP "m=" line in
   particular, and the creation of a number of additional attributes to
   describe the lower layers of transport.

   Addressing of TDM circuits is also different, and for media gateway
   control is actually irrelevant, since the information is conveyed by
   other means (terminationIDs in Megaco/H.248, and endpoint
   identifiers in MGCP).  This affects the SDP "c=" line and makes
   redundant the port identification on the "m=" line.

   The other lines of the SDP session description can generally be used
   without modification from their use as described in [1], with the
   following notes:

    1. If the "b=" line is present, it MUST indicate a bandwidth of 64
      (kbit/s).  The modifier used is "AS".  The effective user rate,
      if less than this, is indicated by an attribute within the media

   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               3
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

      description.

    2. The "k=" line MAY be present.  There are probably consistency
      conditions on the media format value in this case.

1.4 Changes From The Previous Version

   The main change from the previous version has been to limit the
   scope of the present document by placing greater reliance on the
   Megaco/H.248 multiplex concept.  This has meant the removal of
   wideband or aggregated N x 64 kbit/s service from the scope of the
   document, and the reduction of H.320 and H.324 sessions to
   application/octet-stream media flows from the point of view of TDM
   transport.  (Separate documents define SDP conventions for the H221,
   H223, and H226 transport types.)

   The syntax in this version conforms to [1] rather than RFC 2327.

   MIME subtype registrations for audio/PCMU, audio/PCMA, audio/G721,
   and application/octet-stream over TDM have been added in the
   appendices.

2. "c=" Line For TDM circuits

   The connection field ("c=" line) is structured as follows [1]:

      connection-field =    "c=" nettype space addrtype space
                            connection-address CRLF

   This document reserves a nettype value of "TDM" for TDM circuits.

   The present issue of this document proposes two naming schemes for
   TDM circuits: the NUL scheme (addrtype is "NUL") and the group-and-
   member scheme (addrtype is "GRP").  Future issues of this document
   may specify other schemes.

   The NUL scheme is suitable for use with media gateway control, since
   other means are available (as mentioned above) for designating the
   TDM circuit.  The NUL connection-address MUST be present, but may be
   any string satisfying the syntactical requirements of [1], for
   example, "x".  The receiver MUST ignore the connection-address when
   addrtype is NUL.

   The GRP scheme designates a logical or physical grouping of circuits
   within which individual 64 kbit/s channels may be identified by
   integer values.  The GRP connection-address consists of two parts.
   The first part identifies the logical or physical group, while the
   second identifies the individual circuit within the group.

        grp-connection-address = group-part "/" member-part

        group-part  = non-ws-string  ; as defined in [1]
        member-part = non-ws-string  ; as defined in [1]


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               4
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

   Over all, the syntax conforms to the extension-addr form of unicast-
   address as defined in [1].  There is one additional restriction:
   member-part MUST NOT contain the "/" character.



3. "m=" Line For TDM Circuits

   [1] defines the syntax of the media field ("m=" line) as follows:

      media-field =         "m=" media space port ["/" integer]
                            space proto 1*(space fmt) CRLF

3.1 Specification of Medium and Format

   In accordance with [1], the media token must be a MIME type and the
   fmt token must reference a MIME subtype.  Since existing MIME type
   registration is for packet transport, it will be necessary to add or
   extend registrations to include TDM transport.  Where possible, the
   extension route is preferable.

   Based on RFC 2046 [13] and a review of the various fields of the
   Bearer Capability Information Element, the two possible settings for
   the media token appear to be "audio" and "application".  The
   available range of subtypes is more problematic.

   We begin the discussion with "audio".  RFC 2046 defines one audio
   subtype: "basic".  This denotes G.711 mu-law PCM.  This would be
   been quite acceptable to match the Q.931 User Information Layer 1
   protocol codepoint "Recommendation G.711 mu-law", but leaves
   "Recommendation G.711 A-law" out in the cold.  Very fortunately, the
   AVT Working Group has created a new document [14] to register RTP
   payload types as MIME subtypes.  Two of these subtypes are
   audio/PCMA and audio/PCMU, corresponding to A-law and Mu-law
   companding respectively.  The Q.931 codepoint "Recommendation G.721
   [11] 32 kbit/s ADPCM and Recommendation I.460" is actually for
   G.726, which is covered in [14] by the audio/G726-16, audio/G726-24,
   audio/G726-32, and audio/G726-40 MIME subtypes.

   The Q.931 codepoints "Recommendations H.221 and H.242" and
   "Recommendations H.223 and H.245" refer to the use of H.320 and
   H.324I multimedia conferencing, respectively.  In the Megaco/H.248
   model, the TDM circuits carrying these sessions feed into
   terminations representing the respective multiplexes.  It is the
   responsibility of the multiplexes to manage the audio, video, data,
   and control flows.  The SDP for this purpose is documented
   separately, on the premise that each multiplex represents another
   transport type.  From the TDM point of view, the flows are
   undifferentiated, so the MIME subtype application/octet-stream is
   appropriate.

   "application/octet-stream" is probably adequate to cover the other
   possibilities provided for in Q.931.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               5
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

   In summary, the possible medium/format combinations for TDM
   transport are:
    - audio/pcma
    - audio/pcmu
    - audio/g726-16, 24, 32, 40
    - application/octet-stream
   The MIME registrations for all of these must be updated to note the
   possibility of transport over TDM.  This is done in the appendices
   to the present document.

   If the nature of the medium (typically "audio") is known, it should
   be specified accordingly.  Otherwise, medium and format are derived
   from the Transmission Mode, Information Transfer Capability, and
   User Information Layer 1 Protocol of the bearer, as follows:

      1. Set media = "application" if Transmission Mode is not
         "circuit", or if Information Transfer Capability is
         "unrestricted digital information" or "restricted digital
         information".

      2. If Transmission Mode is "circuit" and Information Transfer
         Capability is "Speech" or "3.1 kHz audio", set media =
         "audio".

      3. If Transmission Mode is "circuit" and Information Transfer
         Capability is "Unrestricted digital information with tones and
         announcements", set media = "audio" while the call is being
         set up, then set it to "application".

      4. If Transmission Mode is "circuit" and Information Transfer
         Capability is "Video", set media = "application".
         "Application" is more appropriate than "video" as a MIME type
         because the bit stream carries more than just video and an
         application tool is required to interpret it.

3.2 Specification of Port

   Port number is inapplicable to TDM circuits, but must be specified
   to satisfy SDP syntax.  Where the present specification is being
   used in circumstances in which the offer-answer model [15] applies,
   setting port = 0 indicates rejection of a media stream.  It is
   therefore RECOMMENDED that the sender set port = 1 except when it is
   being used in this way.  The receiver must ignore non-zero port
   values, and must ignore zero values unless the application is one to
   which the offer-answer model applies.  Megaco/H.248 in particular
   does not conform to the offer-answer model, and port is therefore
   irrelevant.

3.3 Specification of Protocol

   Q.931 and Q.939 distinguish between protocol information which the
   network sees and may modify (in the Bearer Capability Information
   Element) and protocol information which is available only between
   endpoints (in the Low Layer Compatibility Information Element).

   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               6
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

   Depending on endpoint intentions, any of the protocol information at
   layers 1, 2, or 3 may appear in either place.  The only information
   which is guaranteed to be visible to the network is the transfer
   mode (circuit, packet, or frame mode).  It is therefore proposed
   that the transport profile on the "m=" line indicate the transfer
   mode, but that additional protocol information be indicated on
   attribute lines within the media description.  This document
   accordingly defines three transport profiles:

   . "TDM" denotes circuit mode (octet-oriented) transport over a TDM
     circuit.

   . "PKT/TDM" denotes packet mode transport over a TDM circuit

   . "FRM/TDM" denotes frame mode transport over a TDM circuit.

   The audio MIME type applies only to TDM transport.  The
   application/octet-string MIME type may be carried by any of the
   three transports.


4. Attributes For TDM circuits

4.1 Audio Transfer Capability

   a= spchonly

   When present, attribute "spchonly" indicates that an audio
   connection is suitable only for speech (Q.931 Information Transfer
   Capability = speech) and not for modem or FAX signals.


4.2 Bandwidth Restriction

   a=56kmax

   When present, this attribute indicates that the transfer rate for
   user data is limited to 56 kbit/s per channel.  ITU-T Recommendation
   I.464 gives further details of operation under these circumstances.


4.3 Protocol Profile

   The protocol profile attribute is required to distinguish payloads
   characterized by the apllication/octet-string MIME type.

   As mentioned above, Q.931 provides two places for user protocols to
   be specified: in Bearer Capability, where they are subject to
   inspection and modification by network equipment such as gateways or
   proxies, and in Low Layer Compatibility, where they are placed for
   the information of the remote peer.  Rules for the choice of
   placement are given in Recommendation Q.939.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               7
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

   The present document assumes that if a protocol is exposed to the
   network, all parameters describing that protocol are also exposed.
   Thus it is unnecessary to provide segregated versions of the various
   protocol parameters, only of the protocol stacks themselves.

   a=netprof:<profile>
   a=e2eprof:<profile>

   Attribute "netprof" lists the protocols which the sender is prepared
   to expose to network inspection.  Attribute "e2eprof" lists those
   which are intended for remote peer use only.  Attribute "netprof"
   SHOULD be present if media = "application" on the "m=" line, even if
   it is empty.

   <profile> consists of up to three protocol designators, one per
   layer, separated by "/".  The protocols are ordered from highest to
   lowest.  Missing layers are omitted, along with their separators.
   For any given layer:
    - no protocol is specified in either "netprof" or "e2eprof", or
    - some protocol is specified in "netprof", or
    - some protocol is specified in "e2eprof".

   Protocol parameters for protocols listed in "e2eprof" SHOULD be
   transmitted by network entities without modification.

   Examples:

   a=netprof:Q922A
        frame relay

   a=e2eprof:X25P/X25L/V110
        X.25 packet layer over X.25 link layer over V.110 rate adaption
        (circuit mode operation with user rate less than 64 kbit/s).

   a=e2eprof:PPP
        layers 1 and 2 are specified in "netprof" or not needed (e.g.
        because framing is auto-sensed).

 4.4.1 Layer 1 Protocols

   The following table contains the Layer 1 protocols defined in this
   document.  They correspond to the non-audio codepoints for the User
   information layer 1 protocol given in Q.931.

   Symbol  Description

   V110    ITU-T standardized rate adaption V.110, I.460 and
            X.30.  Requires TDM transport.

   V120    ITU-T standardized rate adaption V.120.  Requires
            TDM transport.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               8
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

   X31     ITU-T standardized rate adaption X.31 HDLC flag
            stuffing.  Requires PKT/TDM (packet-mode)
            transport.

   H221    An H.320 session using the H.221 multiplex.
            Requires TDM transport.

   H223    An H.324/I session using the H.223 multiplex [Note
            1].  Requires TDM transport.



   Note 1: The H223 codepoint is not intended to preclude the use of an
   H.226 multiplex for multilink operation in accordance with H.324
   Annex F.

 4.4.2 Layer 2 Protocols

   The Layer 2 codepoints defined in Q.931 and Q.933 are shown in the
   table below.  The Layer 2 protocol MUST be specified in attribute
   "netprof" if either PKT/TDM (packet mode) or FRM/TDM (frame mode)
   transport is being used.

   Symbol    Description

   Q921      Recommendation Q.921/I.441 (typically used for D-
             channel data).

   X25L      Recommendation X.25, link layer.

   ISO8802   LAN logical link control (ISO/IEC 8802-2)
              Requires TDM transport.

   Q922      Recommendation Q.922 (frame switching). Layer 1
             must be unspecified.  Requires FRM/TDM (frame
              mode) transport.

   Q922A     Core aspects of frame mode (Annex A/Q.922) (frame
              relay).  Layer 1 must be unspecified.  Requires
              FRM/TDM (frame mode) transport.

   ISO1745   Basic mode (ISO/IEC 1745)

   X25ML     Recommendation X.25 Multilink.

   T71       Extended LAPB; for half duplex operation
              (Recommendation T.71)

   HDLC-ARM  HDLC ARM (ISO/IEC 4335).

   HDLC-NRM  HDLC NRM (ISO/IEC 4335).

   HDLC-ABM  HDLC ABM (ISO/IEC 4335).

   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002               9
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002


   X75SLP    Recommendation X.75 single Link Procedure (SLP).

   ISO7776   ISO/IEC 7776 DTE-DCE operation.


 4.4.3 Layer 3 Protocols

   The Layer 3 codepoints defined in Q.931 are shown in the table
   below.

   Symbol  Description

   Q931    Recommendation Q.931 (i.e. call signalling).

   X25P    Recommendation X.25, packet layer.

   IP      Internet Protocol (RFC 791)  Requires TDM
            transport.

   PPP     Point to Point Protocol (RFC 1598, RFC 1618, or
            RFC 1973, depending on lower layer).  Requires TDM
            transport.

   X25PLP  ISO/IEC 8208 [41] (X.25 packet level protocol for
            data terminal equipment)

   ISO8878 ITU-T Rec. X.223 and ISO/IEC 8878 (use of ISO/IEC
            8208 and Recommendation X.25 to provide the OSI-
            CONS)

   ISO8473 ISO/IEC 8473 (OSI connectionless mode protocol)

   T70MIN  Recommendation T.70 minimum network layer


4.5 User Rate

   a=userbw:<bits>

   <bits> is the user data rate in bits per second per 64 kbit/s
   channel within the TDM circuit.  This attribute is useful in cases
   where the user rate information is not passed end-to-end through in-
   band signalling and negotiation.


4.6 In-Band Negotiation

   a=ibneg

   This attribute if present indicates that in-band negotiation is
   supported by the V.110, X.30, I.460 or modem layer 1 protocol.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002              10
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

4.7 V.110/X.30/I.460 Protocol Parameters

   a=v110parms:<parms>

   <parms> consists of a comma-separated list of parameters.  The only
   required parameter is the intermediate rate for rate adaptation,
   which has the form:
        "intrat="<kbits>
   <kbits> is the intermediate rate in kbit/s, and has the possible
   values 8, 16, 32, or "NONE".

   The remaining parameters are keyword values, as follows:

        "sendNIC" indicates by its presence that network-independent
        clocking will be sent with the outgoing media stream.

        "sendFC" indicates that flow control will be sent with the
        outgoing media stream.

        "recvNIC" indicates that network-independent clocking may be
        present in the incoming media stream.

        "recvFC" indicates that flow control may be present in the
        incoming media stream.

   Note that the directionality convention used here is entity-
   relative, whereas the directionality convention in Q.931 is call-
   relative.  The two conventions coincide at the end of the TDM
   circuit closer to the calling party, but are opposed at the end
   closer to the called party.  The convention in this document is the
   more suitable for media gateway control, since the media gateway is
   unaware of call direction.


 4.8 V.120 Protocol Parameters

   a=v120parms:<parms>

   <parms> consists of a comma-separated list of parameters, as
   follows.  These parameters are required unless otherwise indicated.

        "mode="<mode>
        Indicates whether rate adaptation mode is bit-transparent
        (<mode> = "transp") or protocol-sensitive (<mode> = "protdep").

        "llineg="<negotiation>
        Indicates whether and how Logical Link Identifier (LLI)
        negotiation is done.  <negotiation> has the possible values
        "NONE" (default) if LLI = 256 is the only value supported, "OB"
        if negotiation is possible over a temporary signalling channel,
        or "IB" if negotiation is done on LLI 0.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002              11
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002

        "hdr"
        Optional keyword parameter.  If present, indicates that the
        rate adaption header is included.

        "multifrm"
        Optional keyword parameter.  If present, indicates that
        multiframe establishment is supported.

        "assgn"
        Optional keyword parameter.  If present, indicates that the
        message originator is "Assignor only".  If absent, message
        originator is "Default assignee".


4.9 Asynchronous Parameters

   a=asynch:stop=<sbits>,data=<dbits>,parity=<par>,duplex=<dlx>

   If present, indicates asynchronous data transport.

4.10 Modem

   a=modem:<modem>

   If present, indicates data transport via modem.  <modem> indicates
   the type of modem used.  It may have values "V34" or "V90".  Other
   values may be added in subsequent issues of this document if
   required.  Requires TDM transport and medium specified as audio/PCMU
   or audio/PCMA.

Security Considerations

   This document deals with the signalling of information to direct the
   transfer of user information across TDM circuits.  Threats to
   security may be identified both at the signalling level and at the
   media transport level.  See [1] for a discussion of security issues
   at the signalling level.

   Media transport is in general subject to threats to integrity and
   confidentiality.  (Injection of spurious media into an ongoing
   session is classed here as a breach of integrity.  Passing of
   spurious media outside of an established session is considered to be
   a signalling problem.)  These threats are sharply reduced for TDM as
   opposed to IP bearer transport.  However, the user is not normally
   aware of what sort of transport is in use on an end-to-end basis,
   and the media flow may well pass from one network to another.  Where
   integrity or confidentiality are a concern, end-to-end encryption of
   the media stream should be considered.

   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002              12
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002


References
     1.  M. Handley, V. Jacobson, C. Perkins "SDP: Session Description
          Protocol", IETF draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-new-xx.txt, work in
          progress.

     2.  B. Rosen, J. Segers et al, "Megaco Protocol Version 1.0",
          IETF RFC 3015, Standards Track, November 2000.

     3.  C. Huitema et al, "Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP)
          Version 1.0", IETF RFC 2705, Informational, October 1999.

     4.  M. Handley, H. Schulzrinne, E. Schooler, J. Rosenberg, "SIP:
          Session Initiation Protocol", IETF RFC 2543, Standards Track,
          March 1999.

     5.  ITU-T Recommendation Q.1902.1-6, "Bearer Independent Call
          Control Protocol", July, 2001.

     6.  R. Kumar, M. Mostafa, "Conventions for the use of the Session
          Description Protocol (SDP) for ATM Bearer Connections", IETF
          RFC 3108, Standards Track, May 2001.

     7.  ITU-T Recommendation Q.931, "Digital subscriber Signalling
          System No. 1 รป Network layer", May 1998.

     8.  ITU-T Recommendation Q.763, "Signalling system No. 7 - ISDN
          user part formats and codes", September 1997.

     9.  ITU-T Recommendation Q.699, "Interworking between ISDN access
          and non-ISDN access over ISDN User Part of signalling system
          No. 7", September 1997.

     10. S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
          Levels, IETF RFC 2119, Best Current Practice, March 1997.

     11. H. Schulzrinne, S. Casner, R. Frederick, V. Jacobson, " RTP:
          A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", IETF RFC
          1889, Standards Track, January 1996.

     12. ITU-T Recommendation I.230, "Definition of bearer service
          categories", November 1988.

     13. N. Freed, N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
          Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", IETF RFC 2046,
          November 1996.

     14. S. Casner, P.Hoschka, "MIME Type Registration of RTP Payload
          Type Formats", IETF work in progress.

     15. J. Rosenberg, H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model with
          SDP", IETF Internet Draft approved as Standards Track RFC in
          March, 2002.


   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002              13
                   SDP Conventions For TDM Circuits         April 2002


Author's Address

   Tom Taylor
   Nortel Networks
   P.O. Box 3511, Station C
   Ottawa, Ontario                  Phone:  +1 613 736 0961
   Canada K1Y 4H7                   Email:  taylor@nortelnetworks.com




   Taylor       Standards Track - Expires October 2002              14